Conflict with the Community

Over the past five years, the MVWSD has done a poor job of listening to the concerns of listening of its constituents.  In putting the needs of its bureaucracy ahead of those of its constituents and partners, it has effectively isolated itself from the City, Community.

At the same time, it has seen its enrollment continue to decline despite a steadily increasing Citywide school aged population.

The Monta Loma Park annexation highlights how the District has failed to listen to, and respect, the needs of the Community it now seeks the financial support of.

In April 2020, the Community passed a parcel tax measure that was advertised as a vehicle for providing funds for such facilities as science classrooms and onsite kitchens to provide breakfast and lunches for low income students.

The Community passed this Measure by more that the 2/3rd’s margin required.  

Fast forward six months, when the Monta Loma neighborhood was shocked to learn in late September 2020 that Monta Loma Park, a three acre field and baseball diamond abutting Monta Loma school was going to be fenced, that electronic gates and that would henceforth exclude from the Community from the Park during non-school hours.

The announcement came as a shock to the Community as the date of the fencing scheduled set for less than three weeks from the meeting date.  

The Park was built by the Community. It had been successfully shared by the District, City, and Community for the prior 60 years.  There had been no prior discussions with the Community about the intended annexation of the Park.  There was no discussion as to how the negative impacts of the Districts on Seniors, home bound children, sport teams, and the rest of the Community could be minimized so both the Community and the District’s concerns could be addressed.

This was the middle of the pandemic.  School was not in session.  There were no negative impacts anywhere except on the then homebound Community using the only Park of any size in the neighborhood.

The Community response was one of immediate shock.

Despite this the District refused to calendar this issue on its agenda for discussion.

When the issue was finally calendared, some six months later, Board Chairperson Devon Conley limited public input to one minute per person.

The Community was thus forced to vent their frustration to the City Council.  

At one Council Meeting in the Fall of 2020 over 80 people attended to voice their concerns about the fencing issue.  

(Many in the Community still speculate that it was the District’s intent to drive unhappy citizens to Council to provide itself leverage in its negotiations over tax revenue splitting.)

District representatives attended these Council meetings and cited incidents of dog bites, assaults, and Community intimidation of District staff, as well as the threat of “active shooters” as justification for the fencing plan.  

The community filed Freedom of Information Act requests, which produced no records of dog bites in the last 15 years.   The fact that the District did nothing to repair the broken locks on the gates to its inner campus (that had been broken for years, and which allowed immediate access by anyone to all of the campus,) while it strongly advocated for a million-dollar perimeter fence seemed most dishonest.

After the intervention of the Council, the District proposed convening a “working group” to study the issue.  Shortly after the idea’s introduction, the working group idea soon seemed like more of a contrivance than an actual attempt to address the issue.  

The District insisted on selecting all parties to the working group including those that were to represent the Community.  To most this seems like not only an attempt to set the agenda but also to control the dialogue.  District membership on the committee was concentrated to special education teachers and vocal supporters of fencing (although according to the PTA President, most teachers were not in favor of the plan.)

The working group did not go well for the MVWSD.  The District selected community leaders questioned the veracity of many of the District’s statements and its rationale for completely fencing the Monta Loma campus.  These online meetings were well attended.  The District’s credibility was suffering with the meetings not going as planned, and with the City and the Community looking on, the District unilaterally canceled the Working Group Process.  It announced that in its place it would conduct a “reimagining” summit the following year.

This “reimagining” process never really got off the ground.  

In the following year, without consulting the City, the District subsequently removed the “City of Mountain View, Monta Loma Park” sign, and replaced it with a sign reading “Monta Loma School Field”.  

Signs were posted warning people to stay off the field from 7:30a to 5:00p on school days and much effort was put into documenting cases where adults crossed the field during school hours. (Regardless of whether they were parents, or neighbors.)

In the aftermath of the Monta Loma Park situation there remains a reservoir of mistrust between the Community and the District.

The park is used less than one fourth as much as it was prior to the annexation. People are not sure when, or if they are allowed access.

Other breaches in trust and civility have caused the City and District’s relationship to rupture.  They  have not had civil communications for over a year.